How important are scales and theory in your guitar playing?

[GuitarLegend]

I know this is an old thread but I felt this was relevant. This is a practice method that I give my students when studying modes. They say you can't use scale runs as solos but that doesn't mean you have to play your scales to a boring metronome. In this recording, I played up through the modes G mixolydian, A aeolian, C ionian, D dorian, E phrygian to G mixolydian again. On the way down I substituted a locrian for the ionian by starting on the B note rather than the C and the turnaround in the middle gets a look at the lydian mode that overlays the mixolydian but starts on F instead of G. The chords in the backing were derived from the notes in the mode that they accompany. I find that my students are more willing to play scales over a backing track and thought I would share the idea.



This is played at 180bpm. I hit the wall at 300bpm. I don't mean by using hammer-ons and pull-offs, but by picking each individual note. I can barely think quick enough to play this at 300bpm.
280bpm is manageable and 250 is relatively easy. The record button always slows you down for some reason...

 

[Nola]

Theory is important for many reasons, but mostly if you want freedom instead of rehashing cliche lines or someone else's licks. It's not required to make good music, but it is needed to have musical diversity in any situation and freedom when playing. Unless you're gifted with a great ear. In that case you can get away with it. Many players (e.g. Hendrix) who say they don't know theory do pick a lot up from players they're around and don't realize it.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Did... did you just necro a 6-years-gone victory pete thread?

Someone get the talcum powder!

 

[Nola]

Did... did you just necro a 6-years-gone victory pete thread?

Someone get the talcum powder!

Haha. It showed up as a relevant thread for some reason! I thought it was newish.

 

[Gtoboy]

This thread makes me feel younger!

 

[skwee]

Harmonic Theory, yes. Scales? Never once.

 

[famous beagle]

Harmonic Theory, yes. Scales? Never once.

Interesting. I'm curious as to why. The two are so inextricably connected.

 

[Nola]

Interesting. I'm curious as to why. The two are so inextricably connected.

I gravitate toward harmonic theory more than scales, too, because if you know harmonic theory you know which notes to play under the chord (so you don't really need scales at that point). Maybe that's what he means.
Scales can help with passing tones and modal stuff, and where you have several options harmonically. Beagle, start a theory sub-forum!

 

[FoulPhil]

I use to practice scales and modes. I would go over and over them trying to memorize everything. Never did me one bit of good. I found doing specific movements and working on technique was more effect for improving my playing. I don't follow any theory or anything. I kinda just come up with shit that sounds good to my ears. As I play for myself I don't really care what other people think about my music although it's nice when they like it

 

[spantini]

I used to run through 4 scales over and over on my bass on practice nights waiting for our drummer to show. Did that mostly to limber up as I made a point of using my pinky instead of moving to the next string - it was a bit of showmanship on stage, too. Some people like to watch that stuff.

As for theory, I began playing by ear and it seemed to fall into the theory.

When tasked with writing a bass part, I use scales for the first few measures to orient myself finding at least two solid notes in the verse or chorus, then I improvise around those.
Sometimes the rhythm or melody will lead me back into a scale - more times not, then I just hit the next 'feel good' note and develop a catchy pattern along the way.. or not.

I guess that's where the theory kicks in, though I'm not consciously applying it.

 

[TAE]

I don't play guitar, I play the keys by ear and never learned to read music...This method is not recommended and certainly not something everyone can pull off. But..... there are a lot of players who play pretty well that like me, don't read or know theory...that said, those of us in that non conformist club all had to learn riffs and licks and chords n shit which often times are referred to as scales so yes I suppose learning and practicing scales would be useful and helpful.

On Theory...I don't take my music theoriously... I was writing tunes right out the gate when I was a pup and was playing with a band that had a bass player who was a "Real Musician" who could read music and knew Theory...On a song I wrote I was telling him the bass parts and he argued that whatever note I was telling him to play was incorrect....I had him play what he thought was correct and play what I asked and then asked the other members which they preferred...They preferred the note I was insisting on....It was at that juncture I decided I probably didn't want to muddy my muse with details and the rest is misery....some famous peeps that didn't read music or know theory but made some awesome music.....were Irving Berlin, Danny Elfman, Jimi and many many more....That said I am sure there are more successful musicians that do than don't

 

[skwee]

Sorry, I haven't visited in awhile:

I have learned the modes and scales as part of my music degree training, but aside from being able to identify and discuss them, functional harmony is way more important to the classical and pop music I sing or conduct, and the music I write. Maybe it would be different if I was a sax player, but it rarely comes up as a singer and bass player, and if I'm playing or writing something on guitar, it is really all about getting from one chord area to another--I'm sure there's a modal or scalar way to get there, but it seems a little impractical to worry about.

If it works for you, I'm not going to denigrate it--maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Tom Paul]

I am a guitar player and I should have practiced scales more in my younger years to build up speed. That said, I started playing a little late...mid-teens. In my senior year of high school I took 1 year of piano lessons where I told the teacher that I wanted to learn music theory. Luckily he understood exactly what I wanted and I learned how songs were put together. I play rock/folk etc so a year was enough. I am a guitar player/bass player now. What I learned helped me write songs, I stumble along playing lead guitar....but then I am OK in the genres I work in.

 

[famous beagle]

I don't play guitar, I play the keys by ear and never learned to read music...This method is not recommended and certainly not something everyone can pull off. But..... there are a lot of players who play pretty well that like me, don't read or know theory...that said, those of us in that non conformist club all had to learn riffs and licks and chords n shit which often times are referred to as scales so yes I suppose learning and practicing scales would be useful and helpful.

On Theory...I don't take my music theoriously... I was writing tunes right out the gate when I was a pup and was playing with a band that had a bass player who was a "Real Musician" who could read music and knew Theory...On a song I wrote I was telling him the bass parts and he argued that whatever note I was telling him to play was incorrect....I had him play what he thought was correct and play what I asked and then asked the other members which they preferred...They preferred the note I was insisting on....It was at that juncture I decided I probably didn't want to muddy my muse with details and the rest is misery....some famous peeps that didn't read music or know theory but made some awesome music.....were Irving Berlin, Danny Elfman, Jimi and many many more....That said I am sure there are more successful musicians that do than don't

I think this is a good example of "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing."

It sounds as though your bass player was thinking of theory as kind of being the "rules" of music. But I don't think of it that way. I simply think of theory as a labeling system, basically. It's a way of communicating with other musicians in a (mostly) standardized way that can sometimes speed up things a bit.

I know a lot of people like that as well that learn theory and then think they have to write certain kinds of chord progressions or play with certain kinds of scales. But theory is a reactive practice. It's a way of analyzing the music that's been composed. You can still play any note/progression you want; theory will simply tell you a name for it.

 

[Nola]

I know a lot of people like that as well that learn theory and then think they have to write certain kinds of chord progressions or play with certain kinds of scales. But theory is a reactive practice. It's a way of analyzing the music that's been composed. You can still play any note/progression you want; theory will simply tell you a name for it.

That's exactly right. It should be used after the fact as "hey, that's interesting and this is why it worked" and maybe during improv. Not to compose songs. Only time I've ever used theory when writing a song is if I got stuck and wasn't sure where I wanted to go. At that point I tried some theoretical ideas to move the song along. Most songs go in a certain direction if you listen. If they don't and hit a roadblock theory can get you out of it or spark an idea. It's also possible TAE's bass player didn't actually know theory and was picking the "wrong" notes, because it's hard to imagine notes played in the bass (which are almost always chord notes) would sound bad. I mean maybe a 3rd muddies it up but it shouldn't be a dramatic thing where you have to ask others to compare notes and pick the best one because the "real musician" picked a bad note. That sounds weird and hard to imagine unless he was trying to add like extensions from jazz chords in the bass. That can definitely sound stupid and not fit most genres!

 

[miroslav]

Most songs go in a certain direction if you listen.

Well...the reason they do that is defined by the theory.
Which is why you can use theory when composing...or just keeping hitting notes and chords until you find stuff that works...which is often already defined by theory.

I mean...I don't think that following theory when you write is about forcing you to write certain chord progressions. It's just that for a lot of music, the chord progressions almost always follow theory, whether you got there knowingly or by accident....and this is at least 90% of the time true with most Rock, Pop, Country, R&B...etc.
Of course, there are ways to work with the theory without sounding "canned" all the time...and there are ways to "wiggle" around the theory creatively, to give a song some variety, but generally speaking, the chords that you "found" where already there as dictated by theory, more times than not.

AFA guitar scales...I only pay attention to the standard major scale and the major/minor pentatonic...combining them based on song chord structure.
I don't ever pay any attention to specific "modes"...though I know that between the pentatonic and the standard major, I'm working my way through all of them, but I never consider "what mode am I in"...only the scales mentioned and the key of the song.

 

[famous beagle]

Well...the reason they do that is defined by the theory.
Which is why you can use theory when composing...or just keeping hitting notes and chords until you find stuff that works...which is often already defined by theory.

I mean...I don't think that following theory when you write is about forcing you to write certain chord progressions. It's just that for a lot of music, the chord progressions almost always follow theory, whether you got there knowingly or by accident....and this is at least 90% of the time true with most Rock, Pop, Country, R&B...etc.
Of course, there are ways to work with the theory without sounding "canned" all the time...and there are ways to "wiggle" around the theory creatively, to give a song some variety, but generally speaking, the chords that you "found" where already there as dictated by theory, more times than not.

AFA guitar scales...I only pay attention to the standard major scale and the major/minor pentatonic...combining them based on song chord structure.
I don't ever pay any attention to specific "modes"...though I know that between the pentatonic and the standard major, I'm working my way through all of them, but I never consider "what mode am I in"...only the scales mentioned and the key of the song.

Certain theory is "built-in" to music (at least Western music) because of the overtone series. That's why the dominant/up a fourth relationship sounds good to us, because when you play one note, you're really hearing a dominant chord when you consider all the overtones. This is also why minor sounds "sad" or "dark" to us---or at least I imagine---because it's rubbing against the natural dominant series in the overtones.

That said, there's really room for any kind of root movement, and certain things come into fashion throughout the years. I think what Nola and I are trying to say is that any chord can be described in theoretical terms, but someone who simply "learns theory" might not ever reach certain progressions in their composition if he/she views theory as a set of "rules." To me, it's more accurate to say it's a set of conventions, if that.

 

[famous beagle]

Well...the reason they do that is defined by the theory.
Which is why you can use theory when composing...or just keeping hitting notes and chords until you find stuff that works...which is often already defined by theory.

I mean...I don't think that following theory when you write is about forcing you to write certain chord progressions. It's just that for a lot of music, the chord progressions almost always follow theory, whether you got there knowingly or by accident....and this is at least 90% of the time true with most Rock, Pop, Country, R&B...etc.
Of course, there are ways to work with the theory without sounding "canned" all the time...and there are ways to "wiggle" around the theory creatively, to give a song some variety, but generally speaking, the chords that you "found" where already there as dictated by theory, more times than not.

AFA guitar scales...I only pay attention to the standard major scale and the major/minor pentatonic...combining them based on song chord structure.
I don't ever pay any attention to specific "modes"...though I know that between the pentatonic and the standard major, I'm working my way through all of them, but I never consider "what mode am I in"...only the scales mentioned and the key of the song.

Regarding modes, IMHO, the best way to experience them and learn their sound, is in a parallel fashion. In other words, there's not really much to be gained from "playing the seven modes of the C major scale," --- i.e., C Ionian, D Dorian, E Phyrgian, etc. In that context, it's just all going to sound like a C major scale.

A better exercise to do is to, for example, loop a one-chord C major vamp, for example, and then play all the C major-based modes over that. In other words:

play C Ionian over C major
then play C Lydian over C major
then play C Mixolydian over C major

Then do the same with the minor-based modes:

play C Aeolian (natural minor) over C minor
then play C Dorian over C minor
then play C Phrygian over C minor

This way you can really hear the different sound that each mode brings to the table.

 

[miroslav]

...there's really room for any kind of root movement, and certain things come into fashion throughout the years.

Right...but my point is that when you look at Rock/Pop/Country/R&B...etc...the "fashion" has driven the "root movement" to stay within generally predictable paths or "rules" of music theory. So talking about more abstract compositional pathways isn't what today's music styles are following.
The other point I'm making is that knowing the theory lets you cut to the chase...and for anyone who just pokes around looking to find something that works, they are simply taking the long road...but there's no additional "creativity" in doing that, though I'm sure it feels like it is to the person just poking around.

This way you can really hear the different sound that each mode brings to the table.

I get all that...I was simply saying that I don't waste my time analyzing modes individually, since they are only small parts of a scale.
IOW...if I'm going to plat a solo in a given key, I don't much care about which mode to play, I just focus on the whole scale, and the feel of the song and the chords behind it, which may drive how much of the solo playing hits on or stays in a given "mode"...but I don't particularly find any useful information knowing that I'm playing Ionian or Phrygian or Mixolydian...etc....whereas knowing which key and scale is usefull/needed information to me.

That said...some of the great, older blues players had no idea what key or scale or mode, or even what notes they were playing...and yet, managed to "converse" quite well with other musicians...but I agree with you that sometimes being able to speak basic theory helps the conversation.

I remember seeing a video clips (or was it a story I read somewhere?)...where BB King was playing with some more modern players (might have been someone from the Stones or similar), and talk of chords came up, and BB simply said something like, "you guys just play, I don't bother with that stuff" or something like that...and it made me realize that he really didn't use that language, and that he was primarily a single note, lead player. Like I don't think you saw him strumming rhythm too often, he just would play the single notes, probably following set patterns he was familiar with.
Then I think there's some who would always play everything in like 1-2 keys...that's what they knew.

I also get a kick of the players/strummers who can't play without a capo...I mean, maybe some songs they can, but it seems they know a handful of chord forms and/or a few licks within the first few frets...and the capo lets them get around without needing to know more.
I always see Jimmy Vaughn playing with a capo. Granted, he plays what he knows well...but without that capo, I don't know how easily he could free-jam with other players given the key of a song...?

 

[famous beagle]

The other point I'm making is that knowing the theory lets you cut to the chase...and for anyone who just pokes around looking to find something that works, they are simply taking the long road...but there's no additional "creativity" in doing that, though I'm sure it feels like it is to the person just poking around.

I suppose, but there's no less "creativity" than someone who knows theory, either. Creativity is creativity, regardless of whether someone knows any theory.

I get all that...I was simply saying that I don't waste my time analyzing modes individually, since they are only small parts of a scale.

This is my whole point about modes. They're not just "part of a scale." Each mode is a unique scale in its own right. For some reason, some people like to say "modes aren't scales," but that's kind of silly. There are two "modes" --- Ionian and Aeolian --- that go by two other common names: the major scale and the minor scale. And no one's going to deny that those are scales.

What I'm saying is that each of the seven modes is a scale all its own. And, IMO, as I said, this is best viewed from a parallel relationship---i.e., play C Ionian, C Dorian, C Phrygian, etc. instead of C Ionian, D Dorian, E Phrygian, etc. (which is all going to sound like the C major scale).

That said...some of the great, older blues players had no idea what key or scale or mode, or even what notes they were playing...and yet, managed to "converse" quite well with other musicians...but I agree with you that sometimes being able to speak basic theory helps the conversation.

Absolutely. You don't need to know the names of things to express yourself musically. You just need to know the sounds. Knowing the labels just helps speed up the communication process sometimes.

I'd also argue that there are probably just as many players who know theory but haven't developed their ear very much, and those people are lacking in another form of communication.

In other words, there are two different ways musicians can communicate with each other: one can play something for the other one, or one can say something to the other.

What are you playing there?
I'm just doing this: (plays a I-IV-ii-V in G)

or

What are you playing there?
I'm playing G6-E7-Am7-D9

Assuming he's not helped by looking at the fretboard or something, the person with knowledge of theory but a poor ear isn't going to be helped much by the first example, but he would be fine with the second example.

The person with a great ear, though, would be fine with the first example, whereas he wouldn't likely glean much at all from the second.

Someone who knows theory and has a developed ear would be fine either way.

However, since music is an auditory art, I think having a developed ear is much more important than knowing theory. In other words, if you know what a I-IV-ii-V sounds like, and/or you can play back a melody you hear once without hunting and pecking on your instrument, you're much more likely to be sought out by other players than if you can tell them the names of a bunch of chords/scales but can't recognize them when you hear them.

Of course, knowing theory is great too, but if I had to pick one, a great ear will always trump theoretical knowledge in my book. (The best is to have both, of course!)

I remember seeing a video clips (or was it a story I read somewhere?)...where BB King was playing with some more modern players (might have been someone from the Stones or similar), and talk of chords came up, and BB simply said something like, "you guys just play, I don't bother with that stuff" or something like that...and it made me realize that he really didn't use that language, and that he was primarily a single note, lead player. Like I don't think you saw him strumming rhythm too often, he just would play the single notes, probably following set patterns he was familiar with.

I imagine B.B. could play a few more chords than he claimed to, but it's no doubt that single-note playing was his bag for sure.

I also get a kick of the players/strummers who can't play without a capo...I mean, maybe some songs they can, but it seems they know a handful of chord forms and/or a few licks within the first few frets...and the capo lets them get around without needing to know more.
I always see Jimmy Vaughn playing with a capo. Granted, he plays what he knows well...but without that capo, I don't know how easily he could free-jam with other players given the key of a song...?

I don't know whether Jimmy Vaughan can play well without a capo or not. He certainly loves playing out of the E shape, and that's why he uses the capo so much.

As for strummers or other players "not being able to play without a capo," I don't know that I would go that far. I think most of the time, people use a capo to allow them to achieve a certain sound in a different key. For example, someone may have a song that suits their voice in Bb major. They may be perfectly able to play lots of barre chords all over the neck, but that won't sound the same as strumming open chord shapes. In other words, if they put a capo on fret 3 and play out of G on the guitar, that's going to have a very different sound than if they played without a capo and used barre chords for everything.

I think it would be even more pronounced when you talk about fingerpicking and bluegrass-style flatpicking. Sure, you could pick songs like "Black Mountain Rag" without a capo in different keys, but they would sound totally different without those open strings ringing. And that's a huge part of that bluegrass sound.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the number of players who use a capo because they don't know/can't play any barre chords and/or can't play any scale shapes outside of open position is probably in the minority. I'm sure there are some people, but I think most do it because it allows them to achieve the sound they want.

And even if they do use one because they're limited, well then ... who cares? It didn't seem to hinder John Lee Hooker much. All players have limitations in one form or another. Some can sight read on the guitar really well; most guitar players can't. Some know tons of chords and scales; lots of players only know/use a few. Some can play really fast; others can't or choose not to try. In the end, it doesn't really matter. If a player is able to communicate effectively and touch others with their playing, then they're doing their job I guess, right?